Artificial intelligence is now part of everyday life. And with it a growing skepticism. Two current studies come to the conclusion that Germans like to use AI, but do not want to let it make decisions. At least the latter is positive. Why the initial euphoria is changing and what that means for dealing with AI. A commentary analysis.
background
- Germans have now become a little more skeptical about technology. This is one of the results of the TechnologyRadar 2026 of the German Academy of Engineering Sciences. As a result, fewer people than before believe that technology can solve key problems facing humanity. Among them: poverty, hunger and climate change. The use of AI in particular is viewed critically. One in three of those surveyed uses artificial intelligence in everyday life without any worries, and even two thirds consider AI to be useful in the health sector. 85 percent of users However, it bothers them when AI makes decisions for them. Nine out of ten respondents are of the opinion that AI makes worse decisions than they do.
- According to a survey by the digital association Bitkom, around three quarters of users enjoy using artificial intelligence. For 41 percent, AI models are the first point of contact for almost all questions – even before classic search engines. However: More than 40 percent of Germans would prefer live in a world without AI. According to the analysis, users usually integrate AI deeply into their everyday lives and give the technology a predominantly positive conclusion. However, around 26 percent of those surveyed feel left behind. Almost as many are overwhelmed. Background: a mixture of skepticism, uncertainty and rejection of the increasing spread of AI. The results primarily reflect concerns about control, job loss and social consequences.
- Due to the numerous risks and dangers, many people demonize artificial intelligence and take a defensive stance a. According to a study, most people are worried about losing their jobs due to AI. How justified these are is still unclear. What is clear, however, is that AI models will at least change the world of work. Other concerns include the enormous energy consumption of data centers and disinformation. But AI models can also have positive effects – for example through relief in the healthcare system, progress in environmental protection or new access to education.
Why AI skepticism is a good sign
The increasing skepticism about AI is not a sudden change of heart, but that End of an initially exaggerated hype. After years of countless full-bodied promises and horror scenarios, AI has arrived in everyday life. And with it the realization that it is not a digital messiah, but a tool with risks and side effects. Keywords: hallucinations and energy consumption.
Sure: AI can be extremely helpful, especially when processing large amounts of data. For example in research or in healthcare. But algorithms also hit questionable decisionshelp create deepfakes or spread false information for propaganda purposes.
That is why AI is now viewed much more critically. And that’s a good thing! An example: Many people use AI almost as a matter of course, but don’t want algorithms to take over too much control. That is no technophobia. This is a legitimate desire for self-determination.
But the debate often suffers from extremes. While some praise AI, others demonize it as a job or climate killer. When used correctly, it can have advantages in many areas – even when it comes to environmental protection. Or in short: The Truth lies in the middle. The challenge is therefore to differentiate between justified criticism and knee-jerk rejection in order to use AI under certain rules in the way and where it makes social sense. Because it is also true that AI will no longer disappear.
Voices
- Felix Streiter, Managing Director of the Carl Zeiss Foundationin a statement: “Technological progress only develops its full potential when it serves the common good. The results of the TechnikRadar 2026 show: People know what is at stake. Now it is up to science, business and politics to strengthen confidence in dialogue with people and to communicate advances made possible by technologies well.”
- Ortwin Renn, scientific co-director of the TechnikRadar 2026takes a similar note: “Those who have little trust in institutions want to have a greater say in decision-making themselves – this is a well-known pattern. But this presents politics and science with a challenge: citizen participation cannot be seen as an alternative to scientific and technical expertise and as a replacement for politically legitimate action. Rather, everyone involved from politics, business and civil society must openly address conflicting goals together and develop viable solutions.”
- Ralf Wintergerst, President of the digital association Bitkomin a statement: “Artificial intelligence has enormous disruptive potential and is changing our everyday life and our working world at a pace that understandably unsettles many people. The best antidote to uncertainty is knowledge. We need comprehensive offers that give people of all ages easy access to AI, from elementary school to vocational school and the workplace to adult education centers for senior citizens. A digital gap must not even arise between people with and without AI.”
Regaining trust: What matters now
More and more powerful models will not decide whether skepticism towards AI continues to increase or levels off. Rather, it’s about the actual benefit. And not in the sense of what is possible, but which really makes sense.
This means: the more transparent applications and the clearer responsibilities and rules are, the sooner lost trust can return. But it is the other way around every new case of abuse further fuels doubts. What will therefore be crucial is how well politics, business and education accompany technological change.
Anyone who just says that you have to get used to AI and doesn’t question its use is will meet resistance. On the other hand, anyone who is able to assess opportunities and risks themselves will take away the aura of technology – both the promising and the dystopian. Or: In the end, education is more effective than alarmism.
The question is therefore not whether we want to live with AI, but how. The most important thing will be to establish rules that… Put people at the center and not large corporations or technological possibilities. Then it is not AI itself that determines its social acceptance, but how it is handled.
Also interesting:
